Facebook Asking Some Users To Upload Government Issued IDs
Facebook on Thursday began asking certain popular users to upload photos of their government issued identification cards to help the social network test a new accounts verification service, the social network confirmed to TPM.
The new process enables people to verify their identities by submitting a government issued ID, a Facebook spokesperson said.
Facebook also revealed to TechCrunch, which first broke the news of the new verification process on Wednesday night, that it will permanently delete the ID information after the account holder has been verified.
Facebook did not elaborate on how exactly it will go about verifying the IDs or the accounts supposedly attached to them.
Twitter and Google Plus, which also offer account verification services for selected users and have done so for months (years in the case of Twitter), are similarly opaque about how those verification processes work.
Read more here:
http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/facebook-now-verifying-accounts-making-users-upload-govt-issued-ids.php
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)Sorry, I didn't read the article first, maybe this is overseas? If it's in the good ole USA, I don't know nuthin' about a government issued ID
bathroommonkey76
(3,827 posts)Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)"yeah, heh heh, just upload your passport...or your SS number...heh heh. It's safe with us!"
Nuts on that noise, it'll be buh-bye FB before I go through that crap.
Denver Donkeys
(39 posts)I decided to quit Facebook.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)It's like Hotel California, you can check out, but you can never leave. They will still have all your information in perpituity.
Facebook has become Big Brother.
I rarely use it now. My wife is still a big FB user.
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)never click on those stupid ads. no info about my B-day, college, etc. My likes include: breathing, walking....
christx30
(6,241 posts)you keep getting those spam emails from fly-by-night oxygen suppliers and shoe manufacturers.
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)I am
sce56
(4,828 posts)Like License number etc.
Not in favor of this but they do not want your id #'s
bathroommonkey76
(3,827 posts)I know that I am exaggerating a bit, but FB tends to not explain their actions for the average user to understand. They have been doing this type of thing for a long time.
They don't need your id #s. FB already knows who you are. With all of the information they collect on their users it's conceivable that your face is in some database somewhere. I do not trust these clowns for their sly data gathering techniques and neither should YOU!
boppers
(16,588 posts)"I only want these 5 people to know I'm gay" is a real privacy headache to manage, software wise.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)If unique identifiers like account numbers and SSNs are blacked out they may as well just take the user's word for it.
That instruction makes sense to me only in a testing phase. A real rollout of verification would need that info or the IDs are useless.
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)what would you be uploading? You could FAKE an SS with ANY name on it.
boppers
(16,588 posts)To fake being somebody else, you'd have to know their name, *and* number, otherwise E-verify will kick it back as invalid.
Gore1FL
(21,104 posts)They have to fill out a form that says they are indeed the famous person they say they are in order to use the nick name of the famous person they say they are.
For example, Stefani Germanotta, aka Lady Gaga, could use Verified Accounts to verify that she is the famous Stefani Germanotta, to display her name as Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga), or display it as simply Lady Gaga with Stefani Germanotta appearing the About page of her profile.
Lady Gaga would then appear more frequently in Facebooks Subscribe suggestions. Additionally, those who enjoy her music wouldnt accidentally subscribe to another person with the same birth name, or that registered an account with that name in hopes of duping subscribers and spamming them.
Facebook will manually approve alternative names to make sure theyre real stage names, pen names, or otherwise established monikers for applicants. It will need to be careful to avoid mistakenly verifying fake accounts, like Twitter did in the Wendi Murdoch fiasco.
This is a non-issue. There is no there there.
tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)This is beyond creepy.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)be the fucking day. They tell me they can't get ahold of me by email every time I log in, but I get emails from them all the fucking time. Seems to be like a twitter account verification to stop epople form making accounts of famous or popular people..
Fuck them..
closeupready
(29,503 posts)No thanks.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Those they like?
I'd says its DOBs is all they really want for marketing databases.
Maybe there will be something about fuck off they cant quite grasp.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)As a not-Facebook example, I remember some Trek actors getting briefly in trouble for using their own names on other platforms until they could prove they were who they said they were, as opposed to some schlub claiming to be someone else (which isn't rare).
As a Facebook-specific example, George Takei'd probably get that if it wasn't already fairly thoroughly obvious the account's his.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)and Jordan's lawyers are trying to stop it.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)A lot of famous people have a number of impersonators online. This may just be a reaction to that. If I were famous, I might even appreciate having a tool to combat people who can cause damage to my reputation.
So long as you don't have to send them ID numbers, I am not quite as freaked out about this as many other aspects of our modern electronic lives.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)I guess its to help prevent spoofing in some instances.
I'm reminded of when Microsoft took a guy in Scotland to court over the use of his company name - MikeRoweSoft. They lost because his name really is Mike Rowe and the small size of his company was such that no confusion should ever arise.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)for FaceBook
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Richardo
(38,391 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)but it does smell heavily of Homeland Security.
patrice
(47,992 posts)why don't I have a right to know who YOU are, on FaceBook or anywhere else for that matter that you are exercising your "right" to speech?
If that right to speech is based upon your personhood, your Youness if you will, how is that right manifested in secrecy about YOU?
If we protest this "right" in Citizens' United, why would we support it on Facebook by demanding identity secrecy?
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)are all signs that FB has peaked. FB pumped -- next comes the dump.
The next version of an FB site will do well to allow users to segregate professional, personal and family contacts IMHO.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-08/wealthy-investors-shrug-at-facebook-ipo-after-private-purchases.html
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/science-and-technology/2011/06/15/facebook-fatigue-as-millions-unfriend-the-social-media-giant-86908-23202490/
boppers
(16,588 posts)Facebook already has it, too.
Nobody seems to use it, though. They just bitch the the site "should have known" that a drunken photo wasn't meant to be sent to their mother.
saras
(6,670 posts)The idea that a bunch of sleazeballs like Facebook have a right to examine your ID - well, some people sign up to download malware, too.
allan01
(1,950 posts)zukenberg is taking more and more and more of our personal data. who authorized this mornic requirement , face book or our government. earlier fb wanted our mobile phone #s when we wanted to ask for a new password . what next
? this crap has got to stop now!
kirby
(4,441 posts)People have given it to him. Big difference.
BadgerKid
(4,549 posts)to get around any interagency data sharing barriers.
TBF
(32,016 posts)He's such a little twerp. If that becomes a requirement that will be the end of FB for me.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Maybe hundreds?
Oh, and Zuck's SS# was already given out, back in 2007. It's bad form to release such info on DU, so I will direct you to an article about Zuck, and threading the privacy needle:
http://allthingsd.com/20071130/ironic-yes-but-zuckerbergs-privacy-violated/
TBF
(32,016 posts)but lovely defense of Facebook. It's amazing to see how easily some people will give up their privacy and demand the same from others. Of course in your article, which you obviously neglected to actually read, there was a release of information which was immediately corrected. Of course they would correct it in Zuckerberg's case - but the average person on the street - good luck.
boppers
(16,588 posts)IP's have owners. Those owners lease to customers. It's all tracked.
IOW: If you don't want to give up your privacy, please stay off the internet.
Simple enough to understand?
TBF
(32,016 posts)And again, nice support of Facebook. Noted.
boppers
(16,588 posts)I don't mind it. Others fear losing their privacy.
Whatever floats your boat.
JJW
(1,416 posts)no thanks!
KatyaR
(3,445 posts)How do these asshats' lawyers not tell them what a bad thing this is? Or, probably, they just don't listen.
BlueIris
(29,135 posts)Enjoy obscurity, FB asshats.
Response to bathroommonkey76 (Original post)
Post removed
Gore1FL
(21,104 posts)It's to protect them. It's to protect their fans.
They aren't demanding this from the user base.
It's all at the link...
Frank Cannon
(7,570 posts)There are ways to check the bonafides of a celebrities without asking for their freaking Social Security cards. How about a picture of a celeb holding an "I <3 Facebook" sign and a copy of today's New York Times? That's what other websites do.
This is just more Facebook creepiness. Anyone who would hand over their driver's license to the likes of Facebook would have to have rocks in their head.
Gore1FL
(21,104 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Obama's Internet ID plan is also beginning pilot programs that will test possible verification service providers. I posted the link to the full proposal here recently.
They envision a centralized service like this to become ubiquitous for Internet transactions in the near future.
Bad_Ronald
(265 posts)Well, not exactly, the link explains it all. But, it's always fun to take a few things out of context with articles like this for shits & giggles. The sad thing is, this probably would be a mandatory requirement if certain elements in our society had their way.
applegrove
(118,501 posts)Response to bathroommonkey76 (Original post)
UCmeNdc This message was self-deleted by its author.
egeorgequi
(20 posts)newhopeministriescwd
(1 post)I just started this lets all sign it something needs to be done this is invasion of privacy